What is the Abomination of Desolation?

[Giblets]

Matthew 24:15 says, "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

I've heard it said that Nero sat in the Jewish Temple and proclaimed himself as God fulfilling this but that's incorrect because Nero never visited Jerusalem, the Jewish Temple was actually destroyed by Nero's general Titus.

I believe it is an end time warning when the churches (the "Holy Place") become apostate and we see Satan ruling in them it's time to leave the church and flee to God (God is represented by mountains in Psalm 121:1–2)

 

[Davidstarr]

You guys are mistaking who the King of the North is.

In both Daniel 8:8 and 11:4 it shows Alexander's kingdom divided into 4 separate nations, "towards the 4 winds" (AKA 4 compass points).
This means one kingdom to the north, one to the east, one to the south and one to the west.
In Daniel 11:5-15 it speaks more of the conflicts between the King of the North and the King of the South.
The Kings of the East and West are not mentioned.

These are those 4 kingdoms:
The Seleucid Empire (East) - There was no other kingdom further east than the Seleucid Empire. (No other kingdoms that were originally part of Alexander's Empire.)
Ptolemaic (Egypt) (South) - The prophecy explicitly states Egypt was the King of the South.
The Antigonid Kingdom (West) - Included modern day Italy and Greece. There was no other kingdom further west than Antigonid.
Attalid Kingdom (North) - Just by the process of elimination modern day Turkey has to be the King of the North.

The Seleucid Empire cannot be the King of the North for the simple reason it was the furthest easternmost empire that Grecia had divided into. No other nation could be King of the East.

Perhaps this map may help:
Grecia's 4 nations

 

[OMC]

I have shown you, in my posts above.
You have persistently stood on the ground of denominational teachings and ignored what the bible actually says.

lie and prove

 

[OMC]

Thanks @OMC . Let's see what you got...



This sounds good, although I believe that Daniel teaches that the 'time of the end' begins with the battles of Actium and Alexandria and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In other words, the time of the end already happened. I will address this in a moment.



Agreed.



Agreed.



Agreed.



Agreed, although you are now paraphrasing and glossing over blocks of verses which can lead to errors.



The above is where your glossing over the critically important verses of Daniel 11 to 13 leads to a fatal error. You have failed to understand that Antiochus III the Great does not make it past verse 13.

Here is the detailed breakdown:

Daniel 11:10 - But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

But his sons shall be stirred up…:
'His sons' refers to the sons of the king of the North, Seleucus II Callinicus, whose sons were Seleucus III Ceraunus and Antiochus III the Great.

…and shall assemble a multitude of great forces…:
The assembling of a great army signifies the preparation for significant military campaigns. Historically, Antiochus III, known for his military prowess, gathered substantial forces to reclaim territories lost to the Ptolemies.

…and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through…:
The imagery of advancing "like a flood" suggests an overwhelming and unstoppable military campaign. Antiochus III's campaigns were marked by rapid and decisive movements, reclaiming territories in the Levant.

…then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.:
The "fortress" likely refers to a strategic stronghold or city, possibly in the region of Coele-Syria, which was a contested area between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Daniel 11:11 - And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

And the king of the south shall be moved with choler…:
This phrase refers to the king of the South, Ptolemy IV Philopater, who was king of Egypt at that time, being advanced to the crown upon the death of his father Ptolemy III Euergetes. The 'rage' indicates a strong emotional response, likely due to previous conflicts or provocations.

…and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north…:
The King of the North is Antiochus III the Great.

…and he shall set forth a great multitude…:
The “multitude” being the army of Antiochus III the Great, which was severely defeated at that place. This is supported by Daniel 11:12, where we read of the conduct of the southern king after his victory.

…. but the multitude shall be given into his hand:
The “large army” of the North is “delivered” to Ptolemy at Raphia, fulfilling the prophecy with literal accuracy. This defeat forced Antiochus to withdraw from Coele-Syria and return to Seleucid territory north of Lebanon.

Daniel 11:12 - And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

And when he hath taken away the multitude…:
This suggests a significant military victory, where the king of the South, Ptolemy IV Philopater, achieves a substantial defeat over his enemies, likely the forces of the king of the North, Antiochus III the Great. The forces of the king of the North (Antiochus III) are seized and removed after their defeat at Raphia.

…his heart shall be lifted up…:
Ptolemy IV Philopater becomes proud and arrogant as a result of his success.

…and he shall cast down many ten thousands…:
The casting down of tens of thousands indicates a large-scale battle with heavy casualties, emphasizing the might and ferocity of the conflict.

…but he shall not be strengthened by it:
Despite the resounding victory, Ptolemy IV Philopater gained no lasting strength. Within a few years his moral decay, heavy taxation, and internal unrest wiped out the advantage.

Daniel 11:13 - For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

For the king of the north shall return…:
After the death of Ptolemy IV Philopater, Antiochus III the Great formed a secret pact with Philip V of Macedon to partition the Ptolemaic Empire. Thus, Antiochus III the Great shall return and perform another invasion of Egypt along with Philip V of Macedon.

…and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former…:
Once more Antiochus III the Great attacked the Ptolemaic province of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, and by 199 BC he seems to have had possession of it before the Aetolian leader Scopas recovered it for Ptolemy. But that recovery proved brief, for in 198 BC Antiochus III the Great defeated Scopas at the Battle of Panium, near the sources of the Jordan, a battle which marks the end of Ptolemaic rule in Judea.

…and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.…:
This all happened some thirteen or fourteen years after the battle of Raphia, when Ptolemy V Epiphanes, a mere child, had succeeded his father, Ptolemy IV Philopater. Antiochus III the Great took advantage of this weakness. This verse marks the end of Antiochus III.

IMPORTANT NOTES:
Antiochus III the Great invasion of Greece in 192 BC, supported by the Aetolian League, ignited the Roman-Seleucid War. Despite initial successes, including the defeat of Ptolemaic forces at the Battle of Panium in 198 BC, Antiochus was eventually defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae in 191 BC and then decisively at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. As a result of his defeats, Antiochus was forced to sign the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, losing vast amounts of territory west of the Taurus Mountains to Rome and its allies, like Rhodes and Pergamon. Antiochus III the Great died in 187 BC.

Daniel 11:13 marks the end of Antiochus III the Great!

I will now address more of your comments in my next post.

Your entire reconstruction collapses at a single textual point: Daniel never switches the king of the north in v.13, never signals a succession, never introduces a new subject, never ends Antiochus III, and never transitions to Rome or Herod; the Hebrew keeps the same king alive, acting, returning, assembling a greater multitude, and invading again “after certain years,” which is exactly what Antiochus III does, and the next subject‑switch does not occur until v.14, where new actors rise “against the king of the south,” meaning your claim that v.13 “marks the end of Antiochus III” is not in the text — it is imported from later Roman history. Daniel is not writing biographies; he is writing campaign‑chains, and vv.10–13 describe Antiochus III’s first invasion (vv.10–11), defeat at Raphia (v.12), and second, larger invasion thirteen years later (v.13). The world‑system error is that you treat the historical death of Antiochus III as if Daniel were marking it, but Daniel never marks deaths in this chapter except when the text explicitly says so (v.19, v.20). Your reading also breaks the grammar of vv.21–35, because the contemptible king of v.21 is introduced as the successor to the king of v.20, not to the king of v.13; the subject‑chain is: v.13 king of the north → v.14 external actors → v.15 king of the north again → v.16–20 successive kings → v.21 the contemptible king. If Antiochus III “ends” at v.13, the subject‑chain collapses, because v.15’s king of the north must be his successor, Seleucus IV, and v.21 must be the next successor, Antiochus IV — which is exactly the historical flow Daniel describes. Your Actium‑to‑70 AD “time of the end” also breaks Daniel’s own usage: 11:35, 11:40, 12:4, 12:9 all use the phrase for the same eschatological horizon, not for Herod’s era, not for Rome’s civil wars, and not for 70 AD. Daniel’s “time of the end” is defined inside Daniel, not by NT events.

 

[OMC]

Continuing with my comments:



Once again, you paraphrased many verses which has led to errors in your interpretations. This is why I requested a 'verse-by-verse' commentary. In other words, each individual verse must have its own interpretation. This is the only way to properly see where things go right or wrong.

Now, look at the very first thing you wrote:



That is one of the most critical phrases in the entire chapter of Daniel 11 as far as chronology is concerned. As I stated earlier, Daniel 11:13 is the end of Antiochus III the Great. How do we know? Because after him "Many stand against the king of the south". The verse is teaching us that a great deal of time has now passed!

How long does it take to raise an army and attack a king? Obviously, this takes a while. Now multiply that by 'many' and you can see that the timeline has now jumped many years ahead. Most likely, we are looking at decades ahead. This means that Daniel 11:14 is now about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the new king of the north. Antiochus III the Great is long dead by then.

You then glossed over the Maccabean Revolt!

Here is the breakdown:

Daniel 11:14 - And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Notes: Commentators are generally in agreement up to this verse. SDA introduces Rome, while other denominations keep going with Antiochus III the Great. It is apparent that neither side has it correct.

And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south…:
The timeline now jumps ahead to somewhere between 170 BC and 160 BC. Many have tried to stand up against the King of the South. A significant amount of time has passed since the previous verse. Antiochus III the Great is long dead. Antiochus IV Epiphanes becomes the new King of the North.

…also the robbers of thy people…:
The is the beginning of the many heresies committed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes leading up to the Maccabean Revolt. 'Robbers of thy people' can easily be linked in all kinds of ways to that particular time period of betrayal, blasphemy, civil war, liberation and so on.

…shall exalt themselves to establish the vision…:
This is very strong language. The vision is referring Daniel's prophecies, specifically the return of the Messiah. There are factions trying to force it all to come to fruition before the appointed time! Again, this is Maccabean Revolt language being used.

…but they shall fall…:
Since God makes things happen in His time, the forcing of prophecy, which included the infamous 'swine event', was a failure. The same thing is now happening in modern times. A false, so called 'Third Temple' may be constructed in the near future to once again force Daniel's Abomination of Desolation prophecies to come to fruition. History repeats itself. Spoiler alert: The Abomination of Desolation has already happened!!!

Your entire argument that “Daniel 11:13 ends Antiochus III” and that “Daniel 11:14 jumps decades ahead to Antiochus IV because many stand up against the king of the south” collapses the moment you let the text itself define its transitions: Daniel never uses “many shall stand up” as a king‑switch marker, never uses it as a time‑jump marker, never uses it as a succession marker, and never uses it as a death marker; instead, the Hebrew keeps the king of the north alive through v.13, introduces additional actors in v.14 (“many”), and then immediately returns to the king of the north in v.15 — meaning v.14 is not a chronological leap but an interlude describing simultaneous pressures against the south. The world‑system error in your reading is that you treat “many shall stand up” as if Daniel were saying “a new king now reigns,” but Daniel never signals king‑changes that way; he signals them explicitly (“his place shall be taken,” v.20; “a contemptible person shall arise,” v.21). Your interpretation also breaks the grammar: if v.14 were Antiochus IV, then v.15’s king of the north would also be Antiochus IV, but v.21 introduces Antiochus IV as a new contemptible king after the raiser of taxes in v.20 — meaning v.14–20 must be the reign of Seleucus IV and the political chaos around him, not Antiochus IV. And your Maccabean reading of v.14 (“robbers of thy people”) breaks Daniel’s own vocabulary: Daniel never uses “robbers” (פָּרִיצִים) for faithful Jews or messianic expectation; he uses it for violent transgressors (cf. Dan 8:23), not for people “forcing the vision.” Daniel 11:14 is describing opportunistic factions during Seleucus IV’s weak reign, not messianic zealots. The subject‑chain is airtight: v.13 king of the north → v.14 many actors → v.15 king of the north → v.16–20 successive kings → v.21 Antiochus IV.

 

[OMC]

Continuing with my comments:



Again, you did not do a verse-by-verse commentary which would have exposed your mistakes.

Let's keep going with the verses:

Daniel 11:15 - So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

So the king of the north shall come…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North) begins his first campaign into Egypt and against its King of the South, Ptolemy VI, in 170 BC.

…and cast up a mount…:
Large earthen ramps (agger) and elevated wooden siege towers to overcome high defensive walls were commonly built during this era.

…and take the most fenced cities…:
Many fortified cities were taken.

…and the arms of the south shall not withstand…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes managed to conquer all of Egypt except for the heavily fortified capital of Alexandria.

…neither his chosen people…:
King Ptolemy VI (Antiochus's nephew), his 'chosen people', was taken prisoner and set up as a 'puppet' ruler.

…neither shall there be any strength to withstand.:
Egypt's traditional ally, the Roman Republic, was bogged down in the Third Macedonian War and could not intervene.

Daniel 11:16 - But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

Notes: Scholars have great trouble with this verse. They try to fit Antiochus III the Great into this prophecy; however he does not fit and the scholars admit it. The common interpretations greatly contradict actual history.

But he that cometh against him…:
But he, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North), that cometh against him, Ptolemy VI (King of the South).

…shall do according to his own will…:
This is a special phrase which signifies absolute, unchecked tyranny. It describes a ruthless ruler who acts entirely on his own desires, unanswerable to human laws or divine authority, and whose military conquests initially succeed because no one can oppose him.

…and none shall stand before him…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes would soon began his second phase of the Sixth Syrian War into Egypt, aiming to decisively conquer and annex the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

…and he shall stand in the glorious land…:
As a consequence of this campaign, Antiochus IV Epiphanes will find himself going into the Glorius Land, i.e., Judea once again.

…which by his hand shall be consumed.:
This is a reference to all of massive turmoil in Judea that led to the Maccabean Revolt.

Daniel 11:17 - He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom…:
The verse jumps briefly ahead in the timeline to describe events that will happen after Antiochus IV Epiphanes returns humiliated from his *second* Egyptian campaign (described in verse 18). The deposed Jewish High Priest Jason launched a coup oust his rival, High Priest Menelaus. This enraged Antiochus IV Epiphanes who deployed substantial military force against Judea, triggering the Maccabean Revolt.

…and upright ones with him; thus shall he do…:
Fierce internal rivalries and violent civil strife in Jerusalem heavily drove conservative, observant Jews to align with Seleucid-backed Hellenizing factions to protect their political and financial power.

…and he shall give him the daughter of women…:
This is a widely mis-translated and mis-interpreted verse based on bias and 'copy-cat' eisegesis. The phrase is actually describing a faction of pro-Seleucid, Hellenized Jews who actively collaborated with Antiochus IV Epiphanes to solidify his control over Judea, referred to here as 'the daughter of women'.

…corrupting her…:
History is replete with accounts of all the atrocities and corruption that happened during that time period.

…but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.:
Thankfully, Judea, the daughter of women, would not stand on the side of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Neither will she be for him.

Daniel 11:18 - After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

After this…:
Jumping back to verse 15, 'after this' is referring to time right after Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North) led his first campaign into Egypt against Ptolemy VI (King of the South). It was around this time that Antiochus IV Epiphanes caused major upheaval in Judea.

…shall he turn his face unto the isles and shall take many…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes begins his second campaign against Egypt, taking the island of Cyprus and various parts of the coastlands.

…but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease…:
This was viewed as a 'reproach' or insolence by the Roman Republic. As a result, the Roman ambassador Gaius Popillius Laenas famously forced Antiochus to withdraw his forces by drawing a circle in the sand around the king, demanding a withdrawal before he stepped out.

…without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes reluctantly withdrew and was bitter. He then turned this bitterness against Judea, ultimately resulting in the Maccabean Revolt. The reproach of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was consequently turned back onto himself.

Daniel 11:19 - Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was on a military and plundering campaign in Persia/Elam when his forces suffered defeats. Around the same time, he received infuriating news that his armies in Judea had been defeated by the Maccabees. He tried to urgently rush back to his capital in Antioch to restore order and his authority, but he fell gravely ill and died on the way in the city of Tabae (modern-day Isfahan, Iran) in 164 BCE.

…but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.:
The way in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes died is debated. Interestingly, one rumor is that he stumbled and fell from his chariot. He would later succumb to the injuries. Not only is this the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Book of Daniel, but it is also the end of the 'Prince of Grecia' era and the belly and thighs of Brass.

From this point forward, the Book of Daniel transitions into the alluded to 'Prince of Rome' era and the legs of Iron. The reign of the Little Horn of Daniel 8 begins.

Daniel 11:15 cannot be Antiochus IV Epiphanes because Daniel 11:21 explicitly introduces Antiochus IV as a new king after the raiser of taxes in v.20, meaning the king of the north in v.15 must be the king of the north in v.14, and the king of the north in v.14 must be the king of the north in v.13 — which is Antiochus III, not Antiochus IV. Daniel’s subject‑chain is airtight: v.13 king of the north → v.14 many actors rise against the south → v.15 king of the north again → v.16–20 successive kings → v.21 “a vile person” who comes in his estate — a succession marker that cannot be applied to Antiochus IV if he already appeared in v.15. The world‑system error in your reading is that you treat v.15 as Antiochus IV because you want the Maccabean revolt to start early, but Daniel never signals a king‑switch until v.20–21, and the Hebrew grammar forbids inserting Antiochus IV before the text introduces him. Every detail you assign to Antiochus IV in vv.15–19 is historically accurate — but textually misplaced, because Daniel’s own succession markers (“in his estate,” v.21; “his place,” v.20) show that vv.15–20 belong to Seleucus IV and the political chaos around him, not to Antiochus IV.

 

[OMC]

Finally, we get to verse 20 which has nothing to do with Antiochus:

Daniel 11:20 - Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

Then shall stand up in his estate…:
Nearly a century has passed since the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Rome takes over the Seleucid Empire. Julius Caesar is the new King of the North. Rome is the 'Little Horn' of Daniel 8, and the Sixth Head. The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is still future as the deadly wound healed.

…a raiser of taxes…:
Julius Caesar is well known for raising taxes.

…in the glory of the kingdom…:
After Pompey the Great conquered the region in 63 B.C., Judea was made tributary to Rome. Under Julius Caesar in 47 B.C., a system was established where the local Jewish rulers, specifically the High Priest Hyrcanus II and his administrator Antipater, were made responsible for collecting and paying these tributes.

…but within few days he shall be destroyed…:
Julius Caesar ruled as dictator for life (dictator perpetuo) for only about one month. He was granted the title between late January and mid-February in 44 BC and was assassinated on March 15, 44 BC (the Ides of March).

…neither in anger, nor in battle:
Many scholars view this as a prophecy of an assassination, specifically of Seleucus IV Philopator. Here we apply the assassination interpretation to Julius Caesar.


And now we can see that your 'conclusion' is completely false. Antiochus IV Epiphanes is long dead. Julius Caesar is dead as well. Who is the next king of the north?

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person…:
Augustus/Octavian replaced Julius Caesar. Augustus was deeply despised by many. As a ruthless dictator who dismantled the Republic, he faced severe hatred from political rivals, victims of his proscriptions, and conquered peoples across the empire who suffered under his oppressive taxation and imperial rule.

…to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom…:
Augustus did not inherit the throne in the traditional, undisputed line of succession. He officially took power under the humble guise of Princeps (First Citizen), avoiding the traditional, royal trappings of "honor."

…but he shall come in peaceably…:
Augustus maintained the illusion of a restored Republic while holding ultimate authority over the military, treasury, and laws.

...and obtain the kingdom by flatteries…:
This aligns perfectly with Augustus's political brilliance. He famously consolidated ultimate power through charm, diplomatic negotiation, and "flattery" of the Senate and the Roman public.


And now you just glossed over Jesus!!! Come on man! The Prince of the Covenant is Jesus. How can you not know this?

Daniel 11:22 - And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.

And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him…:
This represents the decisive military campaigns of Augustus against his rivals, particularly the sweeping naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC.

...and shall be broken;
The military forces of the Egyptian kingdom (Ptolemaic/King of the south) were entirely crushed and swept away, permanently ending the Hellenistic kingdoms and cementing Octavian's control over the Mediterranean world. Augustus becomes first emperor of the Little Horn power, aka, Sixth Head of the Beast.

...yea, also the prince of the covenant...:
The 'Prince of the Covenant' broken during the era of the Little Horn of Daniel 8/Sixth Head/Roman rule is Jesus Christ. In this reading, 'breaking' refers to His crucifixion, which occurred under the Roman administration of Pontius Pilate during the subsequent reign of Tiberius (Augustus's successor).

King Herod now enters the picture for the first time:

Daniel 11:23 - And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

And after the league made with him he...:
This is a tricky verse to interpret as it introduces a new character. It is important to get the 'he' and 'him' correct. A league is made with 'him'. Who is him? The him is Octavian. The league that is made with Octavian is with 'he'. Who is he? The he is King Herod. Fleeing to Rome in 40 BC, Herod secured the title 'King of the Jews' from the Roman Senate with the backing of Mark Antony and Octavian (later Augustus). When Antony fell, Herod seamlessly shifted his loyalty to Augustus.

...shall work deceitfully…:
King Herod acted extremely deceitfully. His rise to power was a shock to many Jews. He was an Idumean (from Edom) and not from the traditional royal Jewish lineage. His sudden ascension to 'King of the Jews' was entirely orchestrated by the Roman Senate in 40 BC, bypassing native Hasmonean rulers.

...for he shall come up...:
Remember, Augustus has already been described as coming up in verse 21. The 'he' here is again, King Herod.

...and shall become strong with a small people:
King Herod became strong with a 'small people' as a minority ruler from Idumea (Edom), south of Judea, and with the people of Judea itself.

Daniel 11:20 cannot be Julius Caesar because Daniel 11:21 introduces the next king as “a vile person” who rises in the estate of the king in v.20, meaning v.20’s king must be the immediate predecessor of v.21’s king, and the only historical pair that fits Daniel’s own succession markers is Seleucus IV → Antiochus IV, not Julius Caesar → Augustus; Daniel never jumps 100 years, never jumps empires, never jumps geography, never jumps from Syria to Rome, never jumps from the Seleucid throne to the Roman Senate, and never uses “in his estate” to describe a foreign conqueror inheriting a foreign throne. The world‑system error in your reading is simple: you treat Daniel 11 as if it were a panoramic prophecy of Rome, Jesus, Herod, and the NT, but Daniel 11 itself never leaves the Seleucid–Ptolemaic conflict until v.36; the subject‑chain is airtight: v.13 king of the north (Antiochus III) → v.14 many actors rise against the south → v.15 king of the north again (Seleucus IV’s general) → v.16–20 Seleucid succession → v.21 Antiochus IV introduced as a new king, which is impossible if you already placed him in vv.15–19. Your reading forces Antiochus IV to appear twice, forces Seleucus IV to disappear, forces Daniel to skip the very king he explicitly describes as “a raiser of taxes,” forces the phrase “in his estate” to mean “in a different empire,” and forces the “prince of the covenant” to be Jesus even though Daniel uses that title earlier for Onias_III, the murdered high priest in the Antiochus IV crisis. Daniel’s grammar, geography, succession markers, and covenant vocabulary all contradict your reconstruction.